States Meeting Transcript - 9th September 2014

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT

TUESDAY, 9th SEPTEMBER 2014

COMMUNICATIONS BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER ......................................8

1. The Deputy Bailiff : ......................................................................8
2. The Deputy Bailiff : ......................................................................8
3. The Deputy Bailiff : ......................................................................8
4. The Deputy Bailiff : ......................................................................8
5. The Deputy Bailiff : ......................................................................8

QUESTIONS ......................................................................................8

2. Written questions.........................................................................8

1. DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE UTILITIES AND ISSUES WITH THJE J.T. BILLING SYSTEM:......................8
2. DEPUTY J.A.N. LE FONDRÉ OF ST. LAWRENCE OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING FINANCIAL FORECASTS FOR 2016 TO 2019:..........................................................................9
   3. DEPUTY J.A.N. LE FONDRÉ OF ST. LAWRENCE OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING DIVIDENDS FROM UTILITY COMPANIES: .........................................................................11
3. DEPUTY J.A.N. LE FONDRÉ OF ST. LAWRENCE OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE INFORMATION GIVEN TO CREDIT RATING AGENCIES:.......................................................12
4. DEPUTY S.S.P.A POWER OF ST. BRELADE OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING PAYMENTS MADE TO THE FORMER TREASURER OF THE STATES:...............................................................................13
5. DEPUTY S.S.P.A POWER OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE SCOPE FOR TAX INCREASES IN THE BUDGET 2015:................................................13
6. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING COURT PROCEEDINGS HELD IN PRIVATE:.......................15
7. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF H.M. ATTORNEY GENERAL REGARDING GUIDANCE GIVEN TO THE STATES OF JERSEY POLICE AND STATES DEPARTMENTS:............................................................16
8. THE CONNÉTABLE OF ST. JOHN OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE REGARDING THE I.T. ALLOWANCE FOR STATES MEMBERS:..................................................................17
9. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE REGARDING THE NUMBER OF QUESTIONS ASKED IN THE STATES ASSEMBLY:...........................17
10. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR

TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE PROPOSALS FOR THE

CRIMINAL OFFENCES CONFISCATION FUND AND THE DRUG

TRAFFICKING CONFISCATION FUND IN THE BUDGET:........................18

12. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR

TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE IMPACT OF THE REVISED FINANCIAL FORECASTS ON PUBLIC SECTOR PAY AWARDS:.................19

13. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR

TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE REVISED FINANCIAL FORECASTS:..........................................................................19

14. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR

TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE MEASURES TO BALANCE THE 2915 BUDGET AND THE IMPACT OF THESE MEASURES ON FUTURE BUDGETS:............................................................................20

15. THE CONNÉTABLE OF ST. MARY OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING A REVIEW OF SPEED LIMITS AND

THE INTRODUCTION OF PENALTY POINTS FOR DRIVERS: ....................21

16. THE CONNÉTABLE OF ST. MARY OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE IMPACT OF THE BUDGET 2015 PROPOSALS ON FREDOM OF INFORMATION:......................................................................22
17. DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING STATES' WEBSITES:.................................................22
18. DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE FINANCIAL IMPACT OF THE U.S. F.A.T.C.A. AGREEMENT:........................................................................24
19. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING WORKERS IN POVERTY IN JERSEY:..................24
20. DEPUTY J.A.N. LE FONDRÉ OF ST. LAWRENCE OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE REVISED FINANCIAL FORECASTS:..........................25
21. DEPUTY M. TADIER OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION, SPORT AND CULTURE REGARDING OUTDOOR BASKETBALL COURTS IN JERSEY:...............................................................................25
22. DEPUTY M. TADIER OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING SOCIAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTION RATES:........26
23. DEPUTY J.H. YOUNG OF ST. BRELADE OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE REVISED FINANCIAL FORECASTS:..........................27
24. DEPUTY J.H. YOUNG OF ST. BRELADE OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BREAKDOWN POLICY: .....................28
25. DEPUTY J.H. YOUNG OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE FORECAST SURPLUSES AND DEFICITS FOR 2016 TO2019:....................................................................29
26. DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE LABOUR REQUIREMENTS OF PUBLIC SECTOR CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS:........................................................32
27. DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING THE NEW VESSEL BEING ACQUIRED BY CONDOR FERRIES:................................................32
28. DEPUTY J.H. YOUNG OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING

AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING A REVIEW OF PLANNING ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES:....................................................33

29. DEPUTY J.H. YOUNG OF ST. BRELADE OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE REGENERATION STEERING GROUP: ........................38
30. DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE PUBLIC SECTOR REFORM PROGRAMME:...................38

31. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH

AND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING ACCESS TO PSYCHIATRIC

SERVICES: ............................................................................38

32. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REAGRDING THE NUMBER OF WORK PERMITS ISSUED:...........40

3. Oral questions...........................................................................42

1. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the significant changes in the income forecasts for 2014 and 2015:..........42 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):............................42

1. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:..............................................................42
2. Deputy J.H. Young of St. Brelade:......................................................43
3. Deputy J.H. Young:....................................................................43
4. Deputy J.H. Young:....................................................................44
5. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:..............................................................44

2. Deputy S.Y. Mézec of St. Helier of the Chairman of Privileges and Procedures Committee regarding campaign group expenses in relation to the forthcoming referendum:............................................................................45 Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee):......45

1. Deputy S.Y. Mézec : ....................................................................45
2. Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary:...................................................46
3. The Connétable of St. Mary:............................................................46
4. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................46
5. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................46
6. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:...............................................47
7. Deputy S.Y. Mézec : ....................................................................47

3. Senator S.C. Ferguson of the Minister for Social Security regarding the reinstatement

of prescription charges: ................................................................47 Senator F. du H. Le Gresley (The Minister for Social Security):..............................48

1. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................48
2. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement:...............................................48
3. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:....................................................48

4. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:.......................................................49
5. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................49

4. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement of the Minister for External Relations

regarding the implementation of a trade boycott of Israel: ..............................50 Senator P.M. Bailhache (The Minister for External Relations):...............................50

1. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains: ..............................................................50
2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:..............................................................50
3. Deputy S.Y. Mézec : ....................................................................51

4. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains: ..............................................................51
   5. Deputy N.B. Le Cornu of St. Helier of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding parking arrangements for tenants and private parking space users at Clos du Fort and Bas du Mont:..................................................................51 Deputy E.J. Noel of St. Lawrence (Assistant Minister for Treasury and Resources - rapporteur):............................................................................52

1. Deputy N.B. Le Cornu: ................................................................52
2. Deputy N.B. Le Cornu: ................................................................52

6. Connétable P.J. Rondel ofSt. John of the Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee regarding receipts for purchases under members' I.T. allowance: ..........53 Deputy J.M. Maçon (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee): .....................53

1. Connétable of St. John:.................................................................53

2. Connétable of St. John:.................................................................53
3. The Connétable of St. Mary:............................................................53
4. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:..............................................................54
5. Connétable of St. John:.................................................................54

7. Deputy J.H. Young of St. Brelade of the Chief Minister regarding the downturn in States revenue income compared to earlier forecasts:...................................54 Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):......................................................54

1. Deputy J.H. Young:....................................................................55
2. Deputy T.A. Vallois of St. Saviour:....................................................55
3. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................55
4. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................56
5. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................56
6. Deputy J.H. Young:....................................................................57

3.8. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier of the Chief Minister regarding the 2 per cent reduction to pay budgets in the 2015 Budget: ..........................................58 Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):......................................................58

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................58
2. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................58
3. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................59
4. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:..............................................................59
5. The Deputy of St. Ouen:................................................................59
6. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................60

9. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade of the Minister for Housing regarding the compliance of social housing in the Island with the U.K. decent homes standard: ..................60 Deputy A.K.F. Green of St. Helier (The Minister for Housing):..............................60

1. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................60
2. Deputy T.A. Vallois: ...................................................................61
3. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................61
4. Deputy J.H. Young:....................................................................61
5. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................62

10. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour of the Minister for Health and Social Services

regarding the percentage of operating theatre time devoted to allow Consultants to

perform private procedures during their working week:................................62 Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity (The Minister for Health and Social Services): ................62

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................63
2. Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier:....................................................63
3. The Deputy of St. Ouen : ............................................................63

11. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the discussions for a bond for Andium HomesLimited:................................64 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):............................64

1. Deputy S.Power:....................................................................64
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..............................................................65
3. Deputy G.P. Southern :..............................................................65
4. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................66
5. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:...........................................................66
6. Deputy S.Power:....................................................................67

12. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier of the Minister for Home Affairs regarding the pursuance of cyber bullying cases:......................................................67 Senator B.I. Le Marquand (The Minister for Home Affairs): .................................67

1. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier:..................................................68
2. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................68
3. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................68

4. Deputy M.R.Higgins:...............................................................68

13. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour of the Minister for External Relations regarding efforts to remove the restrictions on some Jersey residents to work in the

E.U. without a permit:..................................................................69 Senator P.M. Bailhache (The Minister for External Affairs): .................................69

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................69
2. The Deputy of Grouville :............................................................69
3. ` Deputy M.R.Higgins:..............................................................70
4. The Deputy of Grouville :............................................................70
5. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................71
6. Deputy N.B. Le Cornu:..............................................................71
7. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................71

14. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding raising J.T.'s standard of customer service and the potential reinstatement of number cross-referencing previously available in the telephone directory:..............72 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):............................72

3.14.1 Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:............................................................73

15. Deputy J.H. Young of St. Brelade of the Minister for Treasury and Resources

regarding the impact of revised forecasts on the draft Budget and the M.T.F.P:........73 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):............................73

1. Deputy J.H. Young:.................................................................73
2. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:...........................................................74

4. Questions to Ministers without notice - The Minister for Transport and Technical Services..................................................................................75

1. The Connétable of St. John:............................................................75 Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour (The Minister for Transport and Technical Services):.....75

1. The Connétable of St. John:............................................................75
   2. The Connétable of St. Mary:............................................................75
   3. Deputy J.H. Young:....................................................................76
   4. Deputy S.Power:......................................................................76
   5. Connétable J.L.S. of Gallichan of Trinity : ..............................................76
   6. Deputy J.H. Young:....................................................................76
   7. Deputy T.A. Vallois: ...................................................................77

4.7.1 Deputy T.A. Vallois: ...................................................................77

8. The Deputy of St. Ouen:................................................................77

4.8.1 The Deputy of St. Ouen................................................................77

9. Deputy J.H. Young:....................................................................77
10. The Connétable of St. John:............................................................78
11. Deputy T.A. Vallois: ...................................................................78

11. Deputy T.A. Vallois: ...................................................................78
    12. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:..............................................................78

5. Questions to Ministers without notice - The Chief Minister ...........................79

1. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:..............................................................79 Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):......................................................79
2. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................79
3. Deputy N.B. Le Cornu: ................................................................79
4. Deputy M.R. Higgins: ..................................................................80
5. Deputy J.A. Hilton: ....................................................................80

5.5.1 Deputy J.A. Hilton: ....................................................................81

6. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................81

5.6.1 Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................81

7. Deputy M.R. Higgins: ..................................................................81
8. Deputy J.H. Young:....................................................................82
9. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:..............................................................82

5.9.1 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:..............................................................82

PERSONAL STATEMENTS....................................................................83

6. Deputy N.B. Le Cornu: ................................................................83

COMMUNICATIONS BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER .....................................83

7. The Deputy Bailiff : ....................................................................83

PUBLIC BUSINESS.............................................................................83

8. Committee of Inquiry: sale of Broad Street Post Office building (P.61/2014).........83

8.1 Senator A. Breckon:....................................................................84

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED .................................................88 LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT ................................................................88

1. Deputy E.J. Noel:......................................................................88
2. Deputy J.H. Young:....................................................................89
3. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................91
4. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains: ..............................................................93
5. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:..............................................................93
6. Senator I.J. Gorst :......................................................................96
7. The Deputy of St. Ouen:................................................................97
8. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................97
9. Senator A. Breckon:....................................................................98

9. Draft Criminal Justice (Compensation Orders) (Amendment No. 2) (Jersey) Law 201- (P.115/2014).......................................................................101

1. Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):...............................................101
2. Senator I.J. Gorst :.....................................................................102

10. Draft Criminal Justice: (Compensation Orders) (Amendment No. 3) (Jersey) Law 201- (P.115/2014).......................................................................102

10.1. Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):...............................................102

1. Deputy J.H. Young:................................................................102
2. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:.........................................................103
3. Senator I.J. Gorst :..................................................................103

11. Milli's Contact Centre: funding (P.199/2014).........................................104

11.1 Deputy G.P. Southern :................................................................104

1. Deputy K.C. Lewis : ................................................................106
2. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:..........................................................106
3. Deputy J.H. Young:................................................................106
4. Deputy J.A. Martin: ................................................................107
5. Senator P.F. Routier:...............................................................108
6. The Deputy of Trinity :.............................................................108
7. Deputy G.P. Southern :.............................................................109

12. Kerbside Recycling: feasibility study (P.121/2014)....................................111

1. Deputy M. Tadier :....................................................................112

2. Kerbside Recycling: Feasibility Study (P.121/2014) – amendment (P.121/2014 Amd.)...................................................................................112

12.2.1 Deputy K.C. Lewis (The Minister for Transport and Technical Services):..........113

3. Kerbside Recycling: feasibility study (P.121/2014) - as amended....................113

1. The Connétable of St. John:........................................................113
2. Deputy J.H. Young:................................................................113
3. The Connétable of Trinity :.........................................................114
4. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:..........................................................115
5. Deputy K.C. Lewis : ................................................................115
6. Deputy M. Tadier :..................................................................115

13. Funding for Women's Refuge (P.124/2014)...........................................117

13.1 Deputy S.G. Luce of St. Martin:......................................................117

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..............................................................119
2. Senator L.J. Farnham :..............................................................123
3. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.............................................................123
4. Deputy G.P. Southern :.............................................................124
5. The Deputy of St. Ouen : ...........................................................124
6. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:.........................................................125
7. The Deputy of Trinity :.............................................................127
8. Deputy R.G. Bryans of St. Helier:..................................................128
9. Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement:.............................................129
10. Senator I.J. Gorst :...............................................................129
11. Senator P.F. Routier:............................................................129
12. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:....................................................130
13. The Deputy of St. Martin:.......................................................130

ADJOURNMENT..............................................................................133

[9:30]

The Roll was called and the Dean led the Assembly in Prayer. COMMUNICATIONS BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER

1. The Deputy Bailiff :

Members will perhaps wish to mark Senator Bailhache 's défaut excusé in the sense that he is in the Island and in the building with the Ambassador from Romania, and he will no doubt be attending the States Chamber shortly.

2. The Deputy Bailiff :

First of all, in the usual way, I am very pleased to welcome his Excellency, the Lieutenant Governor.  [Approbation]

3. The Deputy Bailiff :

I imagine that Members must already have noticed that I was pleased to welcome back the Deputy of St. Peter. [Approbation] As Members will know, she has been unable to attend the Chamber since last November as a result of illness and I know that we all wish her well and a complete recovery.

4. The Deputy Bailiff :

I also thought I would mention the Ceremony of Light which took place on 4th August to commemorate the declaration of the First World War. All Members and others who attended it have expressed the view that it was marvellously organised and sensitively orchestrated, and I would like to thank all those involved but especially the Bailiff 's Chief Officer, Mr. David Filipponi, who is at the heart of that organisation. [Approbation]

5. The Deputy Bailiff :

Now, before we come to oral questions I would like to draw to the attention of Members that we are privileged to have, in the public gallery, Dr. Jinga who is the Ambassador from Romania to the United Kingdom and I am sure Members will wish to express their greeting in the usual way. [Approbation]

[9:45]

QUESTIONS

2. Written questions

1. DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE UTILITIES AND ISSUES WITH THJE J.T. BILLING SYSTEM:

Question

Does the Minister, as shareholder representative for utilities generally and Jersey Telecom in particular, consider that the Memorandum of Understandings which he relies on should include an ability to require adequate customer satisfaction?

Would he also, in relation to JT –

1. confirm that, as of July of this year, the billing problem had not yet been resolved, and state when final resolution is expected;
2. state why the company is not willing to supply its customers with a bill that is clear, comprehensible and easily understandable, and
3. advise, during the last year, on how many occasions customers have been wrongly charged via Direct Debit and the amounts involved?

Answer

The Minister is the representative for all the utility shareholdings (referred to as Strategic Investments) and Memoranda of Understanding are in place for JT and Jersey Post (being the two wholly owned utilities). There are obligations in these memoranda in regard to operational efficiency and acting in the interests of the community, which the Minister believes directly link to ensuring adequate customer satisfaction.

Specifically in relation to JT, the Memorandum of Understanding includes an objective to be as efficient as comparable telecommunications businesses not owned by the States of Jersey and the requirement to provide adequate customer satisfaction forms part of this objective. But it is also worth noting that standards for adequate customer satisfaction are governed by regulatory obligations set out by CICRA and theses are contained in JT's Customer Code of Practice, which can be accessed via www.jtglobal.com or by following this link: http://www.jtglobal.com/Global/Website%20Assets/footers/Code%20of%20practice/Customer%20Code _of_Practice_Jersey.pdf

In relation to the further questions, JT has advised the Minister that:

1. following cutover to the new operating platform there were 265 items listed for fixing with JT's supplier and 260 of these have now been successfully closed. Of the 5 remaining items, it is expected these will be dealt with over the next quarter;
2. JT is committed to supplying its customers with bills that are clear, comprehensible and easily understandable, which is why it has delivered on the commitments already made (including those such as bigger print and easier to read colours that were raised by customers); and
3. during the cutover to the new system there were a number of direct debit errors which were dealt with by JT making direct contact with each customer impacted and immediately taking action to refund such amounts. Over the last year, there have been an average of 100 direct debit refunds per month, which to put into context for the 62% of customers that choose to pay by direct debit equates to 0.33% of direct debit payments (the average value of which was c.£50).

2. DEPUTY J.A.N. LE FONDRÉ OF ST. LAWRENCE OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING FINANCIAL FORECASTS FOR 2016 TO 2019:

Question

Would the Minister provide the most recent estimates for income, expenditure and forecast surpluses/deficits for the years 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019?

Answer

The draft Budget 2015 provides a revised financial forecast to 2015 at Figure 10.1 page 55.

The work being carried out by officers on Long Term Revenue Planning is considering all aspects of existing expenditure budgets and the requests for additional funding from departments for the next MTFP period  2016-2019,  alongside  the  projections  for  States  revenues.  The  work  of  the  new  Council  of Ministers will be to consider which expenditure areas and services align with its strategic priorities and propose the allocation of available resources accordingly.

The Budget deals with 2015. It will be for the new Council of Ministers to propose appropriate tax and spending measures to deliver a sustainable MTFP for 2016-2019. It would be inappropriate for the current Minister for Treasury and Resources to set out future expenditure of the States. The next Council of Ministers and Assembly will agree their priorities.

However, the draft Budget 2015 also provides, in Figure 12.8 on page 64, an indicative financial forecast for 2016 and 2017 as part of an indicative economic impact assessment.

This indicates a breakeven position on a comparable basis to the existing financial forecast and is based on the latest income forecasts which extend to 2017.

As stated in the draft Budget 2015, page 63, the current assumption is that the next MTFPs will follow a strategy of balanced budgets, but this will be a decision for the next Council of Ministers and States Assembly.

2.3.  DEPUTY J.A.N. LE FONDRÉ OF ST. LAWRENCE OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY  AND  RESOURCES REGARDING  DIVIDENDS  FROM  UTILITY COMPANIES:

Question

1. At the time the draft Budget 2015 was lodged, had the following dividends been agreed in principle by the Boards of the relevant companies -

1. Jersey Post - £5,000,000 (2014)
2. Jersey Telecom - £3,000,000 (2014)
3. Jersey Telecom - £3,000,000 (2015)?

2. In the time after lodging the budget was any communication or correspondence received from any of the utility companies challenging the level of dividends to be required?
3. As at 9 a.m. on Monday 1st September 2014 do the amounts included in the Budget measures to balance the Consolidated Fund (as identified on page 55 of P129/2014) in respect of dividends from the utility companies (namely Jersey Post and Jersey Telecom) remain unchanged and have they been agreed by the companies?

Answer

1. Initial dialogue between JT, Jersey Post and JNWWC and the States was carried out before the draft budget was lodged. For JT and Jersey Post it was in the form of emails and for JNWWC at the AGM and emails. At the time of the draft Budget 2015 being lodged Jersey Telecom and Jersey Post were informed that the Treasury and Resources Minister, on behalf of the States of Jersey, as shareholder, would be requesting the level of dividends included in the draft Budget 2015 report.
2. Discussions have been held with the utility companies since the lodging date. Emails, letters, phone calls and meetings have taken place. This has given the Treasury Minister the opportunity to explain the need for the Budget measures and for utilities to explain any consequences or challenges for them.
3. Now that the utility companies have had a chance to discuss the requests internally and had the opportunity to put the Minister's proposals to their Boards they have communicated their position back and any changes in the proposed dividends will be explained within the further information to be supplied to members as part of the Treasury and Resources Minister's draft Budget 2015 amendments.

4. DEPUTY J.A.N. LE FONDRÉ OF ST. LAWRENCE OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE INFORMATION GIVEN TO CREDIT RATING AGENCIES:

Question

Would the Minister inform members what data and reports were provided to the credit rating agencies in respect of the £250m bond?

Answer

For the actual bond issuance the only rating agency requiring information was Standard and Poor's (S&P) credit rating agency. The timing of the Bond Issuance coincided with S&P's half yearly annual review of the States of Jersey's position. Information was supplied previously when the States obtained its initial credit rating.

The following is a list of information supplied before the bond was issued. S&P analysts have unlimited access like other members of the public to the States' and JFSC main websites (for example: gov.je, statesassembly.gov.je) and would have reviewed latest statistical and other pertinent information available at that time.

Documents available in the Public Domain

• 2013 Accounts and Annex
• 2013 Summary Accounts
• Accounts Slides (2013)
• Statistics link from gov.je website - provided for S&P's analysts to look at all published information available in May 2014
• Parishes' 2013 accounts as available
• 2012 and 2013 accounts for the Utility companies where available (Jersey Post, Jersey Water, JEC and JT Group Limited)

Documents provided not in the Public Domain

• Draft Issuer Description Prospectus
• Extract from one of the book-runners' presentations listing likely interested parties for the bond
• Draft bond issuance timetable and plan for the roadshows as at that time
• Summary of the historical interest rate subsidies provided from the Housing Development Fund to Housing Trusts
• Copy of the 2015 draft capital programme
• Working draft of the presentation to future investors to show pension data. S&P would later have seen the final version.
• Names of contacts at the JFSC

5. DEPUTY S.S.P.A POWER OF ST. BRELADE OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING PAYMENTS MADE TO THE FORMER TREASURER OF THE STATES:

Question

Further to the Minister for Treasury and Resources' confirmation on 15th July 2014 that all payments will be documented in the States accounts next year, could the Chief Minister inform what the approximate amounts that will be disclosed in the 2014 accounts will be in respect of any payments made to the former Treasurer of the States for the period from 1st January 2014, including any amounts connected with her resignation, and would the Chief Minister disclose the amounts of these payments in answering this question rather than waiting until 2015?

Answer

The financial arrangements for the former Treasurer of the States were agreed in accordance with the SEB policy and guidance.

The amounts will be shown, as the Minister for Treasury and Resources has already stated, in the 2014 accounts.

The figures will reflect the total remuneration provided to the States Treasurer in 2014, in line with accounting practice.

6. DEPUTY S.S.P.A POWER OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE SCOPE FOR TAX INCREASES IN THE BUDGET 2015:

Question

In light of the fact that the Jersey all-items RPI (annual averages for each year) shows that in the 5 years from 2008-2013 prices have risen by 13%, an annual average of 2.5% per annum, and that figures provided to me over the summer period by the Statistics Unit show that a person receiving no pay increases over that period will have seen a real-term fall in earnings of -13%, a person receiving a 1% increase per year a real-term fall in earnings of -8% and a person receiving a 2% increase per year a real term fall in earnings of -2%, does the Minister consider that he any scope for a tax increase in any area in the forthcoming Budget when a person would have had to have received a 3% increase in pay every year to have seen a real increase in earnings?

Answer

As indicated in Section 7 of the Draft Budget Statement 2015, taken as a whole, the proposed tax measures are broadly neutral when compared to the MTFP. Where tax increases have been proposed these are modest and targeted.

Alcohol duties

The Draft Budget proposes:

• duties on spirits, wines and strong beer are increased by 1.7% (the March 2014 RPI figure) so as to maintain the value of the applicable duties in real terms;
• duties on lower strength beers are frozen; and
• cider duties are increased in order to harmonise them with the corresponding beer duties, resulting in a simplification of the impôts regime

Tobacco duties

Consistent with the established policy of increasing tobacco duties at a rate above the cost of living, the Draft Budget proposes an increase of 4.7%, an increase of 3% over the March 2014 RPI figure.

Fuel duties

The Draft Budget proposes an increase in fuel duties that would equate to an additional 1p on a litre of unleaded petrol.

Vehicle emissions duty

The Draft Budget proposes an increase in vehicle emission duty of 1.7% across all bands in order to maintain the value of the duty in real terms.

Stamp duty

The Draft Budget proposes increases in stamp duty on properties costing £1m+, this measure, targeted at higher end of the property market, is proposed in order to fund the proposed reduction in stamp duty on mortgage debt which is targeted at the lower end of the market (i.e. where the property on which the debt is secured is worth no more than £400,000).

Mortgage interest tax relief

Based on the data available the proposed £15,000 cap on deductible mortgage interest tax relief will affect approximately 250 taxpayers out of around 8,500 who benefit from the relief currently raising an estimated £100,000.

The Deputy 's question also highlights the importance of keeping inflation under control. The rates of increase in RPI for every quarter of 2013 and 2014 to date have been below 2%, this relates favourably to the longer-term behaviour (across the period of 1990-2012) of increases of 3.9% per annum on average. This highlights the importance of the recent focus on the development of a competitive, open economy, where new entrants to markets are welcomed, competition between businesses is encouraged and a strong competition authority addresses unfair pricing.

7. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING COURT PROCEEDINGS HELD IN PRIVATE:

Question

Will the Chief Minister, in view of his political responsibility for justice matters, state -

1. whether he considers there is a place for court proceedings to be held in private in a democratic society such as Jersey and if so, in what circumstances he considers they are acceptable and/or justified including, in particular, whether he considers they are acceptable for cases under the data protection law?
2. whether he considers that the full cost tothe taxpayer of all cases heard in private should be accounted for openly, transparently and itemized so it is not hidden from the public by being merged or accounted for within other budget headings to ensure that those responsible for the public expenditure can be held accountable for the expenditure;
3. whether he is concerned that the holding of cases in private impacts on Jersey's reputation in the world?

Answer

1. The importance attached bytheCourtsof Jersey to ensuring that, so faras possible, proceedings in court take place in public is well established.

The general principles were summarised by Page Commissioner in G –v- A 2000 JLR 56[1] at pages 59-60 as follows:

"(a) The general principle, beyond doubt, is that all proceedings should take place in public in open court.

2. The constitutional, legal and practical importance of this principle is such that it should not be

displaced except for compelling reasons.

3. Whether to order proceedings in camera is something that must be determined in accordance with

principle, and not on the basis of what the judge happens to consider convenient or reasonable. Potential embarrassment on the part of those who have to give evidence is not a sufficient reason, of itself, to justify a hearing in camera.

4. The question (of principle) that has to be asked can be expressed in various ways but was put

succinctly by the Lord Chancellor, Viscount Haldane, in Scott (or Morgan) v. Scott .. as follows ([1913] A.C. at 439): I think that to justify an order for hearing in camera it must be shown that the paramount object of securing that justice is done would really be rendered doubtful of attainment if the order were not made.'

There are several classes of case in which it is well established that in camera hearings are often necessary. But they are no more than illustrations of this wider principle.

5. The test is a strict one and I quote again from Viscount Haldane ([1913] A.C. at 438):

But the burden lies on those seeking to displace . . . [the general rule as to openness] in the particular case to make out that the ordinary rule must as of necessity be superseded by this paramount consideration. The question is by no means one which, consistently with the spirit of our jurisprudence, can be dealt with by the judge as resting in his mere discretion as to what is expedient. The latter must treat it as one of principle, and as turning, not on convenience, but on necessity."

The general principles set out above apply to all cases, including data protection cases.

Even where the Court feels obliged to sit in private because it is necessary to secure the proper administration of justice, the Court will usually publish an anonymised judgment so that the public can be aware of what has occurred.

The general principles applied in Jersey, as described above, mirror those applied by Courts in the United Kingdom and elsewhere and I accept, for the reasons the Royal Court has given, some cases must be held in private.

2. There is no difference inthecostoftheCourt administration as to whether a court sits in private or in public. All public expenditure must be accounted for in accordance with the rules that apply to the body that incurred that expenditure, and in particular the Public Finances (Jersey) Law 2005. The purpose of those rules is to ensure that those responsible for the public expenditure can be held accountable for the expenditure.
3. I am quite satisfied that there is no adverse impact on the reputation of the Island in relation to holding cases in private, since the principles applied by the Courts in Jersey are the same as those applied by Courts in the United Kingdom and elsewhere.

8. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF H.M. ATTORNEY GENERAL REGARDING GUIDANCE GIVEN TO THE STATES OF JERSEY POLICE AND STATES DEPARTMENTS:

Question

Will the Attorney General advise Members -

1. whether he issues guidance to the Police and States departments on what crimes or regulatory breaches that they should or should not investigate or upon the degree to which any offence, criminal or regulatory, that is committed before they should take steps to institute a prosecution?
2. whether he believes that such guidance should be published to the public in a transparent way so as to all can judge whether such guidance is reasonable in the circumstances?
3. whether he has issued any such guidance to the States of Jersey Police with regard to cyber bullying or the operation of the Crime (Disorderly Conduct and Harassment) (Jersey) Law 2008 and, if so, what guidance he has issued for the treatment of such cases.

1. The Attorney General's Code on the Decision to Prosecute is on the Law Officers' Department website and provides guidance to Centeniers. In 2008, my predecessor re- issued complementary guidance for officers of Regulatory Departments. This document is also available on the Law Officers' Department website. Those documents deal with both evidentiary and public interest considerations.
2. Accordingly, the guidance referred to above is accessible to the public at large.
3. In March 2012, following a number of matters involving use of the Social Media which were being considered by the Data Protection Commissioner and the States of Jersey Police, I issued informal guidance to both in the hope that it might assist them in determining the types of matter which I might regard as being appropriate for prosecution in the courts. That guidance is being reviewed. When that review is complete and the guidance is re-issued, I will consider whether it should be published on our website as formal guidance.

9. THE CONNÉTABLE OF ST. JOHN OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE REGARDING THE I.T. ALLOWANCE FOR STATES MEMBERS:

Question

Would the Chairman provide the Assembly with a list showing the names of States members who have claimed some or all of the £600 IT allowance giving details of the amount claimed by each member?

Answer

Twenty-six States members claimed the full £550 information technology allowance between 1st January and 1st September 2014, totalling £14,300.

An allowance of £600 per annum per States member was made available from 1st January 2014. This was funded using the existing budgeted amount for States members' information services provision. As 2014 is an election year, the allowance was prorated down to £550 to account for the fact that members who were not elected for a further term of office would receive remuneration, including expenses, until the end of November 2014. The States Members Remuneration Review Body has recommended that the £600 allowance is abolished from November 2014 (R.122/2014 refers).

The States agreed a number of years ago (P.225/2004 refers) that it was not appropriate to maintain a public register showing which members claimed remuneration and expenses and as a result this information has never been made public. In the same way the Committee does not feel it is appropriate to provide a list showing the names of those States members who have claimed the IT allowance.

10. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE REGARDING THE NUMBER OF QUESTIONS ASKED IN THE STATES ASSEMBLY:

Question

Will the Chairman of PPC produce in a tabular form information relating to the number and type of questions asked in the States Chamber by each member during the last parliamentary session (2011 to 2014) so that it shows the name of each States member, the number of oral questions with notice asked, the number of oral questions asked under questions without notice, the number of written questions asked and, in each case, to whom they were addressed.

This information requested is available on www.statesassembly.gov.je. It is not presented in the format that has been requested by Deputy M.R. Higgins, however it would take a considerable amount of time to classify and tabulate every written and oral question asked during the last parliamentary session, as well as every question without notice. This would be unlikely to be possible within the short amount of time available to answer the Deputy 's question and is not considered to be a productive use of officer time when the officers of the States Greffe who support PPC are busy with the awareness campaign for the elections.

In addition, there is a risk the publication by the Committee of a table detailing the number and type of questions asked by each States member could be misinterpreted as a form of league' table and would not serve to improve the productivity or efficiency of the States.

Information on the total number of questions asked and the identity of those who have answered them is published every year in the States Assembly Annual Report.

11. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE PROPOSALS FOR THE CRIMINAL OFFENCES CONFISCATION FUND AND THE DRUG TRAFFICKING CONFISCATION FUND IN THE BUDGET:

Question

Will the Minister give detailed descriptions of what capital schemes it is intended to fund to allow the use of £7.5m from funds held in the Criminal Offences Confiscation Fund and the Drug Trafficking Confiscation Fund and explain how these schemes "fit the rules set on the use of these funds?" (see page 56 of draft Budget 2015)?

Is the Minister concerned that repeated use of ring-fenced funds such as Health Insurance Fund, the Criminal Offences Confiscation Fund and the Drug Trafficking Confiscation Fund to cover general revenue shortfalls will bring the public's trust in the ability of the States to properly manage its revenues to a new low and, if not, why not?

Answer

The allocation from the Criminal Offences Confiscation Fund (COCF) and the Drug Trafficking Confiscation Fund (DTCF) will be used to offset the cost of the Police Relocation capital project. This is being proposed following outline approval from the Attorney General confirming that this is an appropriate use of the Fund in accordance with guidelines identified in Article 24 of the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law. Due process is being followed with sign off from the Attorney General, Home Affairs Minister and Treasury Minister.

The COCF now incorporates the DTCF, as agreed by the States in the Proceeds of Crime and Terrorism (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Jersey) Law 2014. The Fund was established to separately account for confiscations from criminal activity and meet international guidelines. In accordance with the law these funds can be applied by the Minister for Treasury and Resources, subject to the advice of the Attorney General, in supporting measures that prevent, deal with or facilitate enforcement of dealing with criminal conduct. These rules have been strictly applied.

The COCF has been used perfectly legitimately in line with the provisions of the law and has largely been used to provide funding for one off expenditure of a capital nature. If these allocations had not been made there would have been a greater call on public finances or other important projects that prevent, deal with or facilitate enforcement of dealing with criminal conduct would not have progressed.

The Health Insurance Fund allocations have been approved by the States to help meet the well-known pressures in Health funding, as part of the process of States agreement of the Health Strategy and sustainable funding,

This is good financial management, utilising all funds available to deliver services and assets. This is also entirely in line with advice from the Fiscal Policy Panel that we should maintain, and even increase, appropriate public expenditure to support the economy and not be constrained by the balance on the consolidated fund.

12. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE IMPACT OF THE REVISED FINANCIAL FORECASTS ON PUBLIC SECTOR PAY AWARDS:

Question

Does the Minister accept that the proposals to manage the consolidated fund balance by removing 2% from the public sector pay budget (page 56 of the Budget 2015) effectively reneges on the agreement made by the SEB for a cost of living pay award in 2015 and, if so, how does he justify this proposal?

If not, why did he feel it was justified to refer to possible recruitment freezes (page 58) at a time when school rolls are rising and the Health and Social Services Department is already carrying vacancies for experienced specialist nurses? Did the Minister carry out an impact assessment of such a recruitment freeze on the level of public services provision before including reference to this in the Budget and, if not, why not?

Answer

Proposals for a pay review in 2015 have yet to be considered by SEB

The Minister asked that the proposed measures in the draft Budget 2015 be reviewed and agreed by both Corporate Management Board and the Council of Ministers ahead of the Budget debate. As a result of this further process Chief Officers have requested that the proposed 2% savings be based on gross expenditure and not specifically targeted at either will be or non-staff budgets. A revised set of measures to manage the balance on the Consolidated Fund will be presented to the States as part of the Minister's Amendments to the draft Budget 2015.

Ministers and their Departments will therefore be able to take account of the impact on staffing levels and the levels of public service provision when determining how the savings are attributed in 2015.

13. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE REVISED FINANCIAL FORECASTS:

Question

Will the Minister state clearly when he was first informed of the potential for a fall in tax revenues in 2014 and 2015 and, in particular, of the size of potential deficits on the projected figures in the Medium Term Financial Plan?

When did the Minister start to consider the options laid out in the Budget for action on shares/dividends in the utility companies JT, Jersey Post and Jersey Water, will he give a detailed account of when the utility companies were informed of these measures and state what discussions and meetings took place?

Answer

The Minister continually takes an active interest in the latest available statistics which inform the trends of economic activity, jobs and income. He has made a number of statements over a significant period of time that the States needed to do everything in their power to secure income and economic activity in one of the most turbulent periods of recent times. The Minister, however, takes no part in the formal Income forecasting process.

The independent Income Tax Forecasting Group (ITFG) meets each year and agrees the Income Tax forecast which then informs that year's annual Budget. A report is issued by the Economics Unit to assist in formalising the forecast position as decided by the ITFG.

The report written to inform the 2014 budget was issued in September 2013 and included a projected downgrade in income tax forecast for 2014 of £13 million and £26 million for 2015 compared to the MTFP figure.

A copy of this report was issued to States Members prior to the debate on the draft Budget 2014.

An updated report was produced in May 2014 by the Economics Unit to inform the draft Budget 2015 report. This resulted in the 2014 Income Tax forecast worsening to £31 million and the 2015 forecast worsening to £50 million. These forecasts led to the development of the proposed measures to balance the Consolidated Fund.

The proposed measures reported in the draft budget are potential options to balance the Consolidated Fund in 2014 and 2015. The Utilities are aware of the importance in meeting the dividend returns forecast in a year and also the Minister's ability to request additional dividend returns for the wholly owned States' Strategic Investments (JT and Jersey Post.)

Initial dialogue between JT, Jersey Post and JNWWC and the States was carried out before the draft budget was lodged. For JT and Jersey Post it was in the form of emails and for JNWWC at the AGM and emails.

The correspondence has continued since then and any revision to the numbers published will reflect these communications.

14. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE MEASURES TO BALANCE THE 2915 BUDGET AND THE IMPACT OF THESE MEASURES ON FUTURE BUDGETS:

Question

What assurances, if any, can the Minister give that measure taken to postpone spending on measures previously agreed by the States on Freedom of Information, early repayment of PECRS debt and the Long Term Care Fund will not be repeated in the 2016 budget?

What confidence does the Minister have that the estimates for tax revenues for 2016 can be relied on and what measures has he put in place to ensure that the emergency measures to balance the budget this year do not need to be repeated in coming years?

Answer

The preparation of the next Strategic Plan and MTFP 2016-2019 will be the responsibility of the new Council of Ministers, following the elections in October 2014.

The work by officers on Long Term Revenue Planning is considering all aspects of existing expenditure budgets and the requests for additional funding from departments for the next MTFP period 2016-2019, alongside the projections for States revenues. The work of the new Council of Ministers will be to consider which expenditure areas and services align with its strategic priorities and propose the allocation of available resources accordingly.

The tax revenue forecasts for 2016 will be reviewed again in 2015, in advance of the next MTFP and 2016 Budget and with the benefit of the 2014 outturn. The economic assumptions will also be updated so undoubtedly these forecasts will change. However, the Minister is confident that the current forecasts are based on the latest and most up to date information and economic assumptions.

There are no "emergency measures". The use of the word "emergency" gives an inappropriate label to properly thought out measures to assist the economy. The proposed measures in the draft Budget 2015 are identified to allow existing public service provision and capital investment in the economy to continue in 2014 and 2015 and utilise available balances and efficiencies as recommended by the Fiscal Policy Panel.

The work described above on Long Term Revenue Planning will identify options for the new Council of Ministers to propose appropriate tax and spending measures to deliver a sustainable MTFP for 2016- 2019.

15. THE CONNÉTABLE OF ST. MARY OF THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES REGARDING A REVIEW OF SPEED LIMITS AND THE INTRODUCTION OF PENALTY POINTS FOR DRIVERS:

Question

Further to previous questions on aspects of road safety, can the Minister advise whether it is still the Department's intention to undertake a review of the Island's speed limits and if so, indicate its likely terms of reference and the anticipated timescale?

Furthermore, will the Minister advise the current position with regard to the possible introduction of penalty points for certain motoring offences?

What priority will the Minister be giving these matters in any "legacy" report he may choose to prepare for the next Minister?

Answer

My Department is in the process of producing a Road Safety Strategy. Appropriate and well enforced lower speed limits and the introduction of a penalty point system are two of 35 potential actions within the draft Strategy. A significant amount of research and key stakeholder consultation has taken place to inform its development. Positive feedback has been received with regard to the proposal for penalty points. With regard to speed limit policy, it would be valuable to carry out a public consultation before finalising proposals and my Department is currently preparing documentation for that consultation.

Although work is well advanced in these areas, there is more to be done, including ensuring that the Minister for Home Affairs is supportive of the proposals, as many of them relate to enforcement. It would be inappropriate to launch a consultation on proposed changes to the current speed limit policy or to finalise the Road Safety Strategy, knowing that a new Minister may be in my place shortly and there will certainly be a new Minister for Home Affairs. The work will therefore be finalised after the elections.

An assessment of Jersey's road injury data found that our serious road injury rate per head of population is 39% higher than in the UK and our road traffic accidents are estimated to cost the Island over £18 million per annum. This is evidence that we must invest more in road safety and I hope to be able to present the Road Safety Strategy to the States early in the New Year. If however I am not in a position to do so, I would certainly urge the new Minister to give the issue a high priority.

16. THE CONNÉTABLE OF ST. MARY OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE IMPACT OF THE BUDGET 2015 PROPOSALS ON FREDOM OF INFORMATION:

Question

The 2015 Budget Statement contains a proposal to reduce contingency allocation to Freedom of Information by £1million and gives the following explanation -

"In order to get ready for enactment of the Freedom of Information Law in 2015 a significant amount of the allocated budget was set aside for the recruitment of staff to work through department policies and procedures. The recruitment of these staff members has proved to be difficult with the levels of knowledge and experience available, which has meant that departments have had to use existing staff and knowledge. An element of the budget allocated to Freedom of Information could, therefore, be returned to the consolidated fund."

Will the Chief Minister advise how the amount of this proposed reduction was identified, including identifying the departments consulted?

Is the Chief Minister confident that this proposal will not impact negatively on the long awaited implementation of the Freedom of Information legislation?

Answer

The original allocation of £4.788m for the implementation of FOI was reviewed and through prudent management of the delivery programme it was felt £1m could be saved by the end of 2015.

The Corporate Management Board, when considering the reprioritisation of funds to meet the new revised income tax forecasts, acknowledged that they will manage with the revised allocation to meet requests made under the new Law.

Due to the good progress that has been made within the departments and what has already been delivered, the implementation of the law is still on track for January 2015.

The final Regulations for the Law are currently being drafted and will be lodged in time for the new Assembly to approve, together with the Appointed Day Act for January 2015

17. DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING STATES' WEBSITES:

Question

Does the Chief Minister accept that many of the States/departmental websites are far from optimal regarding user-friendliness and, if so, will he explain how this has happened and what, if anything, is being done about it?

Answer

Expectations of what makes a good website have increased over the last few years as the internet has become an indispensable tool in the lives of most of us. It was only four years ago that Apple launched the iPad. The existing www.gov.je site was not designed with tablets and smartphones in mind, yet today more of us use them to access the internet than PCs.

It is acknowledged that www.gov.je needs a design refresh. In May 2013, a local company 4Insight was commissioned to carry out independent usability testing on the site involving 30 members of the public. The headline results of that testing were made public on 23 May 2013 http://www.gov.je/News/2013/Pages/WebsiteCustomerResearch.aspx

A project was initiated to address the lessons of the usability testing. Six local companies contributed to the new design, which is intended to work as well on smartphones and tablets as on desktop PCs. It is now in the final stage of development and is expected to launch by the end of this year. independent testing involving members of the public is being planned to take place before the redesign goes live.

The new site has been designed to be usable by those with disabilities. The design team of local suppliers has received specialist training from the Digital Accessibility Centre. The new site is being tested by users with conditions including blindness, low vision, colour blindness, dyslexia, limited limb mobility, learning disabilities, deafness and Asperger's.

Other States websites are also in the process of being redeveloped:

• The States of Jersey Police web site www.jersey.police.uk was re-launched in February 2014
• A new parish site www.parish.gov.je went live at the beginning of August – a good example of the parishes and States staff working together.
• The www.jerseymet.gov.je site has been replaced with a new weather section on gov.je at www.gov.je/weather.
• A new website for Andium Homes www.andiumhomes.je launched in July.
• A project has been agreed to refresh the www.jersey.com site – vital for our Tourism industry.
• The Jersey Law website (www.jerseylaw.je) will be relaunched in 2015.
• Plans are being made to replace the www.jerseyairport.com site and to refresh the www.portofjersey.je site
• A replacement www.jerseycourts.je site is being designed
• Customs & Immigration are working with usability experts to improve the CAESAR website which islanders use to pay GST on goods arriving in the island.

The States has come a long way since 2008 when there were many separate departmental web sites, each with their own writing style, branding, navigation and domain name. Sites were often based on different technology, hosted by different companies, and looked amateurish. We have had a strategy since then to improve the States web sites by consolidating them onto a single platform, with consistently applied high standards for content based on best practice.

In 2014, SOCITM rated the gov.je website as excellent' and commended its clear, easy to use content'. And in January's quarterly Sitemorse survey, Jersey's site was ranked 5th out of 429 local government

sites.

18. DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE FINANCIAL IMPACT OF THE U.S. F.A.T.C.A. AGREEMENT:

Question

Can the Chief Minister confirm whether the cost of the US FATCA to UK businesses and individuals has been estimated at £1bn, and has he estimated the estimated cost to businesses and individuals (including trusts) in Jersey?

Answer

HMRC in 2013 when publishing draft regulations for compliance with the US Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) referred to an estimate of the cost to UK businesses over the first five years of between £1.1bn and £2bn. No equivalent estimate is available for the cost to Jersey businesses.

In considering whether such an estimate should be made regard has been had for the fact that, since the HMRC estimate was published, a global Common Reporting Standard for Automatic Exchange of Information to improve international tax compliance, which mirrors FATCA, has been adopted on which HMRC is consulting with businesses in the UK. In due course the UK will be publishing a Tax Information and Impact Note which will include an estimate of the impact on UK businesses arising from this expansion of reporting obligations.

Jersey has joined with the UK and 45 other jurisdictions in an "Early Adopters Group" committed to the implementation of the global standard and it is intended to consult with industry on this in line with the consultation exercise initiated by HMRC. This consultation will seek information on the cost of implementing the US FATCA and the global standard. From discussions with industry to-date it is clear that for the branches of the UK banks a significant part of the cost burden arising from the installation of IT systems is expected to be covered by the parent bank. This will not be the case with many trust companies, for example, who do not have a UK parent.

The cost burden of implementing the FATCA and global standard reporting requirements will be substantial. However, two important points might be made in this respect. Firstly, because FATCA and the Common Reporting Standard have global application, Jersey's competitors will be equally affected and therefore Jersey's relative competitive position should not be adversely affected. Secondly, and most specifically in respect of FATCA, meeting the requirements is unavoidable if international business is to be undertaken. Businesses in Jersey recognise that they have no alternative but to bear the costs incurred. For government there will be a consequence in that the implementation costs will impact on the level of taxable profits and the effect of this will be a factor to be included in revenue forecasts.

19. DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING WORKERS IN POVERTY IN JERSEY:

Question

In the light of the findings of the Resolution Foundation that in the UK the number of young workers (aged 21 to 30) on low pay, defined as less than two-thirds of the median hourly wage, has risen to almost one in three (29%) what equivalent figures does the Minister have for young Jersey workers in poverty and, if none, will he agree to investigate this issue and report back to the States with his findings?

Does the Minister agree that in the light of the findings in the Jersey/UK comparison of the cost of living study from the Statistics Unit that the cost of living in Jersey is 20% greater than the UK, that our minimum wage is currently set far below a level which would eliminate in-work poverty and will he commission a major review of the minimum wage level, and if not why not?

Answer

The 2014/2015 Household Income Distribution Survey is currently being undertaken by the States of Jersey Statistics Unit. That data will enable analyses to be undertaken of income for different household types, including analysis by age and relative low income.

It is not the purpose of the minimum wage to address issues of poverty. The policy objectives of the minimum wage include to set a minimum standard for pay in the employment relationship and to remove the worst cases of low pay whilst taking into account business realities and supporting a competitive economy. In accordance with the Department's 2014 business plan, work is underway to investigate the possible introduction of a living wage for Jersey and it is intended to produce an interim report on this by the end of 2014.

As the Minister stated in a response to a similar question from Deputy Southern on 18 March 2014, the level at which the minimum wage is set is determined on an annual basis, following the recommendations of the Employment Forum. The Minister does not intend to undertake his own minimum wage review. The Forum will take into account the available statistics and economic advice, including the Jersey-UK Relative Consumer Price Levels for Goods and Services' report for 2013. The Forum will make its recommendation to the Minister later this month which will be presented as a Report to the States.

20. DEPUTY J.A.N. LE FONDRÉ OF ST. LAWRENCE OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE REVISED FINANCIAL FORECASTS:

Question

When was the Council of Ministers formally informed of the significant change in the income forecasts as compared to those included in the Medium Term Financial Plan?

Answer

The Council of Ministers were informed of the revised income tax forecasts at their meeting on 11th June 2014. The Treasurer advised that the income tax department was undertaking further work with agents to assess whether or not any more income was likely to be generated and to check that all returns had been made.

On 30th June 2014 the income tax department confirmed the revised estimate, having completed further enquiries with industry.

The Treasury then set about preparing contingency measures to address the reduced income stream. These were presented to the Council of Ministers at their meeting on 11th July 2014. Ministers accepted the proposed measures, which have been incorporated into draft Budget 2015.

21. DEPUTY M. TADIER OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION, SPORT AND CULTURE REGARDING OUTDOOR BASKETBALL COURTS IN JERSEY:

Question

Will the Minister provide a list of all the publicly accessible outdoor basketball courts in the island, as well as who can use them, whether they are single use, or multi-purpose, and by whom they are administered?

Will the Minister provide an estimate for the cost of building a new outdoor basketball court, and advise whether he believes it would be appropriate to provide such a facility at Les Quennevais Playing Fields.

Answer

There are currently multi-purpose outdoor courts, which include basketball facilities, located at Highlands College, Fort Regent and the Millennium Town Park. They are all open to the public and are free of charge. Those at Fort Regent and Highlands are administered by Education Sport and Culture and the Town Park facility is administered by Transport and Technical Services. Currently, there are no public outdoor courts dedicated solely to basketball.

As part of the Fit for the Future' sport strategy, the outdoor facilities for ball games at Les Quennevais are being upgraded. The hockey facility is being regenerated and the public tennis courts will be resurfaced. Two of the public netball/tennis courts will be converted to accommodate football and basketball, making them multi–purpose. The project has already begun and is due to be completed by the end of November 2014. Converting the two courts with new surface, lights, fencing and posts is costing approximately £84,000.

Building an entirely new court would require a site with planning permission and the cost would probably be in excess of £100,000.

22. DEPUTY M. TADIER OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REGARDING SOCIAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTION RATES: Question

Will the Minister provide projections for income yield if social security contributions were set at 4%, 5% and 6%, respectively, with no SEL or UEL, with employer contributions remaining unchanged?

Given the Minister's recent comments that social security contributions will have to rise, can the Minister give an update of what preparatory work has been done, if any, in the area by his department and will he provide an outline of the preferred options? Does he consider that there is scope to make the contributions mechanism more progressive?

Answer

Earnings limits for 2014 have been set at:

Upper Earnings Monthly Limit (UEL) £12,964 per month £155,568 per year Standard Earnings Monthly Limit (SEL) £3,918 per month £47,016 per year

Under the current system, employers pay a total contribution rate of 6.5% up to the Standard Earnings Limit (SEL) and 2% in respect of earnings between the SEL and the Upper Earnings limit (UEL). Class 1 employees pay 6% up to the SEL, with no contributions levied on earnings above this level. Class 2 individuals (self-employed and others not in employment) pay a total contribution rate of 12.5% up to the Standards Earnings Limit (SEL) and 2% in respect of earnings between the SEL and the Upper Earnings limit (UEL).

The table below provides an estimate of yield under a flat rate, no earnings limit scenario with 4%, 5% and 6% levied on Class 1 employees. The same options have been applied to class 2 individuals, with the table excluding the contributions made by class 2 individuals which are equivalent to employer contributions.

Estimations for yield below the UEL are based on actual contributions received by the Social Security Department in 2012. The Department does not have access to data on the earnings of islanders above the UEL – there is no obligation for such information to be declared to the Department. However in 2011 the Department worked with the Treasury to model options regarding the new 2% contribution rate levied on earnings between SEL and the new UEL. Drawing on this exercise, yield above the  UEL can be estimated.

It should be noted that the estimates above the UEL are vulnerable to variations arising from the ways in which income and earnings are defined.

23. DEPUTY J.H. YOUNG OF ST. BRELADE OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE REVISED FINANCIAL FORECASTS:

Question

In relation to the significant change in the States revenue income forecasts for 2015 as compared to the figures in the Medium Term Financial Plan and those reported to members in the 2014 budget, would the Chief Minister inform the Assembly;

1. whether he was fully and promptly informed about this change and, if so, when;
2. whether he was informed or otherwise, that the chief officer and finance director (or equivalent) of each ministerial department had been promptly informed of the significant change and, if so, when;
3. whether he was informed that Ministers had been promptly informed of the change and when he made arrangements to ensure that each member of the Council of Ministers had been provided with full and prompt information on this change and been asked to consider the implications;
4. what the Council of Minister's initial assessment of the policy implications of the revised estimates of States income was and the action the Council directed be taken as a consequence?

Answer

1. The Income Tax Policy Forecasting Group provided their revised forecasts at the end of May 2014, but further work was required by the Tax Department with industry to assess and fully understand the reason for the lower forecast. I was advised of the revised estimates immediately before they were presented to the Council of Ministers at their meeting on 11th June 2014. At that time, the Treasurer advised the Council of Ministers that these forecasts were still being investigated and the Income Taxes Office was contacting all agents to ensure that all returns had been made
2. The Corporate Management Board was formally informed of the revised Income Tax Forecasts at its meeting on 8th July 2014, although there had been informal discussion at previous meetings. Chief Officers worked with the Treasurer to prepare a list of contingent measures to address the shortfall. These were presented to the Council of Ministers at their meeting on 11th July 2014.
3. The Council of Ministers were presented with the revised income tax forecasts at their meeting on 11th June 2014. The Treasurer advised that the income tax department were undertaking further work with agents to assess whether further income was likely to be generated and that all returns had been made.
4. On 30th June 2014 the income tax department confirmed the revised estimate, having completed further enquiries with industry. The Treasury then set about preparing contingent measures to address the reduced income stream. These were presented to the Council of Ministers at their

meeting on 11th July 2014. Ministers accepted the proposed measures, which have been incorporated into draft Budget 2015.

24. DEPUTY J.H. YOUNG OF ST. BRELADE OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BREAKDOWN POLICY:

Question

Will the Chief Minister give the Assembly details of the relationship breakdown policy currently applied under the Control of Housing and Work (Jersey) Law 2012, and explain how this policy is applied both to entitled persons and to persons licenced to occupy housing and, in particular, inform the Assembly -

1. the effect on the separated partner's right to occupy housing if such partner does not enjoy either entitled or licenced housing status in their own right;
2. the policy in respect of Jersey born children, whether they can remain in their homes whilst in education and whether the policy recognizes the jurisdiction of the Family Division of the court in such matters;
3. how many applications for one party to remain in their family homes have been made under this policy and how many have been refused;
4. whether applications where one party is licensed are automatically refused and, if so, how the Chief Minister justifies such decisions;
5. whether persons and their children refused consent to remain in their home are required to appeal to the Royal Court?

Answer

The relationship breakdown policy currently applied under the Control of Housing and Work (Jersey) Law 2012 (noting that policies under the Law are under ongoing review) is as follows:

Population Office

Control of Housing and Work (Jersey) Law 2012 Marriage and Relationship Breakdown Policy

This policy was developed because of the increasing number of applications of this nature and specifically, to ensure that they were dealt with in a fair and consistent manner. The rationale behind it was that, provided the unqualified spouse or partner had been co-habiting and resident for the specified period, at the time of the marriage, or the commencement of co-habitation as man and wife, such person would have had the expectation of being able to house themselves and any children in satisfactory and suitable housing conditions. The fact that, for whatever reason, the relationship or marriage had broken down was felt, on housing grounds, to have a material and detrimental effect on the children of the relationship or marriage, many of whom had been born and bred in the Island.

The policy is reactive to the breakdown of a relationship where the unqualified partner or spouse could be faced with having to move into uncontrolled accommodation with any children of the relationship or marriage, and is not retrospective or applicable where the spouse or partner has Licensed status.

Policy

Because of the hardship otherwise caused to minor children of a marriage or common-law relationship if entitlement is not granted, Entitled status is granted to an unqualified spouse or partner provided that:-

1. the unqualified spouse or partner has been married to, and/or living with, the Entitled spouse or partner in the Island for at least the previous five years; and
2. the unqualified spouse or partner has been continuously ordinary resident in Jersey for at least the previous seven years; and
3. the unqualified spouse or partner has care and control of the child(ren) either by means of a legal separation or a Court Order. Any permission granted to occupy accommodation will be conditional upon the unqualified spouse or partner in question continuing to have care and control of the minor child(ren).

In the case of a common-law relationship breakdown, no Court Order will be granted but care and control of any child of the relationship must still be with the applicant on a full time basis.

In response to the individual parts of the question and as to how the policy is applied:

1. A separated partner does not have the right to occupy Qualified property if they do not have Entitled or Licenced status, or if they do not satisfy the criteria for qualifying under the relationship breakdown policy. However, all cases are looked at on their own merit and decisions made accordingly, with due account of precedent. Where a partner owns the property, wholly or in part, they are able to remain in occupation, but would not have Entitled status to enable them to lease or purchase alternative Qualified property.
2. The Population Office would consider the Family Division of the Royal Court when making decisions under the Control of Housing and Work (Jersey) Law 2012, but having a Jersey born child does not give a Registered or Entitled for Work parent Entitled status or the automatic right to occupy Qualified property.
3. Applications under the Law for Entitled status on hardship grounds arise for a variety of reasons, and often marriage or relationship breakdown is combined with other elements of hardship. In addition, queries as to Entitled status that very clearly fall inside or outside the policy do not reach the stage of a full hardship application. Having noted this, 6 applications have been processed for Entitled status on the grounds of hardship/marriage and relationship breakdown this year, of which 4 have been refused.
4. The marriage and relationship breakdown policy applies to spouses of Entitled people, not Licenced people. The housing position of a Licenced employee, their spouse/partner and children, is inherently uncertain, being linked to continued essential employment for at least ten years. Many other Islanders continue to work toward their 10 years residence while living in registered accommodation.
   5. Applications are firstly submitted to the Population Office for a decision. The case may then beput before the Assistant Chief Minister and the Housing and Work Advisory Group for further consideration. Once these avenues are exhausted, it is for the individual to decide whether to seek Administrative Review or to appeal to the Royal Court.

25. DEPUTY J.H. YOUNG OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES REGARDING THE FORECAST SURPLUSES AND DEFICITS FOR 2016 TO 2019:

Question

Will the Minister inform the Assembly of the latest forecast revenue surpluses and deficits for the years 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019, based on the financial and expenditure commitments which have been submitted for approval in the Budget 2015 and will he give his assessment of the implications of these forecasts for the future management of States finances?

Answer

The draft Budget 2015 provides a revised financial forecast to 2015 at Figure 10.1 page 55.

The work being carried out by officers on Long Term Revenue Planning is considering all aspects of existing expenditure budgets and the requests for additional  funding from departments for the next Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) period 2016-2019, alongside the projections for States revenues. The work of the new Council of Ministers will be to consider which expenditure areas and services align with its strategic priorities and propose the allocation of available resources accordingly.

The Budget deals with 2015. It will be for the new Council of Ministers to propose appropriate tax and spending measures to deliver a sustainable MTFP for 2016-2019. The next Council of Ministers and Assembly will agree their priorities.

However, the draft Budget 2015 also provides, in Figure 12.8 on page 64, an indicative financial forecast for 2016 and 2017 as part of an indicative economic impact assessment.

This indicates a breakeven position on a comparable basis to the existing financial forecast and is based on the latest income forecasts which extend to 2017.

As stated in the draft Budget 2015, page 63, the current assumption is that the next MTFPs will follow a strategy of balanced budgets, but this will be a decision for the next Council of Ministers and States Assembly.

26. DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE CHIEF MINISTER REGARDING THE LABOUR REQUIREMENTS OF PUBLIC SECTOR CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS:

Question

Given the large number of public sector construction projects due to start, can the Chief Minister confirm that all labour needs will be met from within the current workforce and allocated licences? If not, how will additional labour be sourced?

Answer

As our economy recovers, some net migration will be needed in a range of sectors, including construction, servicing both public and private sector contracts. However the intention is to prioritise existing residents for the available work, and the Housing and Work Advisory Group will promote local employment when considering applications for licences.

Islanders are being supported by various government training initiatives, including the "back to work" and "trackers" programmes, in order to limit the need to import labour.

Back to Work, in partnership with the Jersey Construction Council, is already working to maximise opportunities for unemployed Islanders in Construction. By the end of this year, up to 200 locally qualified jobseekers will have had the opportunity to be trained as Site Operatives' on the Under Construction training course that is being run on the Waterfront and accredited by the Construction Council.

There are 58 students signed up to full time courses in Construction at Highlands and 192 studying part- time (23 at degree level, 73 on the Trackers apprentice programme and the remainder on either level 1, 2 or 3 construction courses).

27. DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR OF THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING THE NEW VESSEL BEING ACQUIRED BY CONDOR FERRIES:

Question

Given that Condor intend to operate all their fast ferry services to the United Kingdom with one vessel, what back up arrangements, if any, will exist in case of breakdowns and other breaks in service?

Answer

Firstly, it is important to note that the new Austal 102 is a vastly improved vessel to the two aging 86 metre catamarans currently in service. In addition to superior sea keeping in heavier weather than the current vessels, the Austal 102 will be a more reliable ship. She can sail as fast on two engines as the existing 86s can sail on three engines. The 8000 series MTU engines and ZF gearboxes are well proven and the Benchijigua Express, which is very similar to the 102, has not missed a day's sailing for a technical reason in eight years.

Secondly, contained within the new Operating Agreement is a generic contingency plan. While circumstances of unplanned outage can be different from occasion to occasion, the generic plan would involve using a combination of the Southern Route High Speed craft to cover a Northern Route sailing during the day and greater usage of the Clipper vessel.

Condor Ferries are also  intending further security  measures during the start-up operation, including retaining one of the current 86 meter vessels as a contingency in the initial period. The final decision around this will be pursuant to the overall planning for the introduction of the new vessel, which is planned for March 2015.

Finally, the generic contingency plan in the Operating Agreement was negotiated prior to the outage experienced over the summer with the Clipper. Contained within the Operating Agreement is a Ferry Services Steering Group, comprising senior representatives from both Islands and Condor. This group will review the Clipper incident, and develop a broader contingency plan from the experience gained from this incident.

28. DEPUTY J.H. YOUNG OF ST. BRELADE OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING A REVIEW OF PLANNING ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES:

Question

Will the Minister inform the Assembly whether any progress has been made by the Planning Department in implementing the essential improvements required to current planning enforcement procedures as identified in the reports of the Reg's Skips Inquiry, the States Complaints Board and most recently the Planning Officers' Society and would he explain why there has been such a long delay in dealing with this matter and ensure that the States receive a full and detailed report outlining the remedial action taken?

Answer

In replying to this question I would like to provide additional information to help put my answer in context.

In 2013, POS Enterprises (POSe), the operational arm of the Planning Officers Society, was appointed to provide a team to visit the States of Jersey to do the following:

• take a forward look at how the planning service might develop over the next three years, to assist in focusing resources and efforts;

• consider how plan making for the Island might develop, in the light of relevant experience within the UK planning systems;

• make an independent assessment of how the Island's planning system effectively balances environmental protection, heritage and the social needs of the Island against the need to see sustained economic performance and in the light of the Island's long term strategic aims;

• review delivery of the recommendations of past reviews to identify any outstanding recommendations which might be seen as priorities in the context of the ideas for future development of the service.

Three past reviews were identified for examination:

• The Shepley Review of 2005 – which was intended to guide planning and building functions at the advent of Ministerial Government;

• The POS Enterprises Process Improvement Programme (PIP) review of the development control service in 2010 – which was commissioned in response to a Committee of Inquiry held earlier that year focusing on a specific high profile planning enforcement case;

• The Reg's Skips Committee of Inquiry Report 2 of 2011 – which endorsed the improvements proposed by the PIP review and made additional recommendations about elements of the service and its operational relationship with other States departments.

The POS Enterprises Shaping the Jersey Planning System for the Future report was published by the department earlier this year and is available on the States website. Annex C, D and E of the report set out the progress made against each of the above previous report recommendations. These Annexes clearly show that most recommendations have been implemented and of those that have not been implemented, some have been overtaken by events and others are being progressed as Department resources allow. The report also recognised the important strides made in improving planning performance, protocols and

information technology, and its recommendations are forming a useful basis to develop and evolve our planning practice over the next three years.

In relation to the planning and building enforcement function, the report acknowledged that a separate internal review was being undertaken by the Director of Environment (further details below) and it would be inappropriate for the POS review to comment in any detail on further action to be taken in this area. It did note that the enforcement policy and procedure guidance still didn't incorporate policy priorities and there needed to be strong and clear leadership and management provided to the enforcement team.

One recommendation was made in this report relating specifically to enforcement procedures, as follows: Recommendation 7.28

Arrangements should be made, at Director level, to complete the work on the following:

Point 3: A set of standard enforcement procedures and user guides, once the current internal review has reported and new arrangements are in place.

This recommendation was identified and captured in the internal review referred to below.

In October 2013, an internal review of how the planning and building enforcement service operates was requested by the Chief Officer of the Department for the Environment. This was prompted by an increase in Freedom of Information requests, requests under data protection processes, and individual cases and court cases highlighting the need to ask whether the administration of complaints through to investigation and possible formal enforcement action needed to be reviewed.

My department published the Shaping the Jersey Planning and Building Enforcement System for the Future – A Review – February 2014 report earlier this year and it is available on the States of Jersey website. The report includes recommendations and underpins the way the service develops into the future. I reviewed the report and recommendations with the Chief Officer of the department and an implementation plan was drawn up.

Appendix A below provides comment on each of the recommendation. Some recommendations have been completed and all others are being progressed.

With regard to the States Complaints Board findings referred to in the Deputy 's question, and as confirmed in my answer to Written Question 1240 (18th March 2014), my response to the Complaints

Board findings have already been published and heard in public.

I renew my invitation to the Deputy to meet with me and some of my department senior officers to discuss enforcement activities further. I hope that we can clarify matters and answer any specific questions Deputy Young has more easily in a face to face meeting.

29. DEPUTY  J.H. YOUNG  OF  ST.  BRELADE  OF  THE  CHIEF  MINISTER REGARDING THE REGENERATION STEERING GROUP:

Question

Will the Chief Minister provide an explanation why the States have still not received a written report from him on the work of the Regeneration Steering Group as he promised in response to my previous 2 questions?

Answer

The  information  requested  related  to  the  composition,  discussions,  decisions  and  directions  of  the Regeneration Steering Group. However, the Group's primary function is to provide advice and guidance. This has highlighted that a fuller report answering both the questions posed and an outline of the status of the various projects considered by the Regeneration Steering Group would have merit. This fuller report is being finalised for presentation to the Assembly before the end of September, bringing together responses from other Departments. I apologise that it has not been completed sooner.

30. DEPUTY  R.G. LE  HÉRISSIER  OF  ST.  SAVIOUR  OF  THE  CHIEF  MINISTER REGARDING THE PUBLIC SECTOR REFORM PROGRAMME:

Question

Does the public service reform programme entail a reduction in the numbers of permanent employees and, if so, what targets have been set for the next 5 years and how do they impact on the different pay grades?

Answer

The Public Sector Reform is designed to ensure a sustainable and affordable public service that provides essential services to Islanders efficiently and effectively.

As services are redesigned and e-government gathers pace, there will be an impact on the skills and staff required to deliver services as they develop and change.

The Reform Programme does not set targets for staff numbers. It is the responsibility of Departments to work within the budgets and staffing parameters agreed by the States Assembly in the Medium Term Financial Plans.

31. DEPUTYM.R.HIGGINSOFST.HELIEROFTHEMINISTERFORHEALTHAND SOCIAL SERVICES REGARDING ACCESS TO PSYCHIATRIC SERVICES: Question

Will the Minister -

1. set out how members of the public seeking the urgent assistance of mental health professionals for friends and family members who are suffering psychotic episodes or other conditions that require admission, voluntarily or by compulsion of law, to Orchard House,St. Saviour or to some other institution can get the help they require and the procedures that must be followed in such cases;

2. inform Members whether a person who calls for assistance in these cases is compelled first to contact their GP to arrange for a psychiatristto consult the person being referred and whether this person will be billed for both the GPs consultation and also that of the psychiatrist who is called out to assess the person who needs urgent medical assessment and treatment at a cost of £100s and, if so, whether she considers this is reasonable;
3. explain what she considers to bean acceptable or reasonable timescale for a person tobe seen by a doctor, psychiatrist or to be taken to Orchard House or a similar institution from time of first request for assistance or from examination by a psychiatrist?

Answer

1. Any member of the public requiring urgent assistance' in regard to their mental health has immediate access to the Adult Mental Health Liaison Service located at the Emergency Department in the General Hospital.

This service is available on a 24/7 basis and provides immediate access to a triage assessment, including relevant access to a specialist community psychiatric nurse, staff grade psychiatrist and Consultant Psychiatrist, as required.

The outcome of an immediate assessment of a person in urgent need of assistance, may lead to further inpatient assessment and/or treatment which can be accommodated in one of two ways:

• firstly, and preferably, on a voluntary basis, which can be facilitated by the psychiatrist
• secondly, via detention under an Article of the Mental Health Law

2. As with access to all secondary care services, the most advisable route is referral by the individual's GP, who will have a holistic view of the patient, and both medical and psychological history. This knowledge is fundamental in being able to provide good mental health care.

Referrals from GPs are prioritised, depending on the risks identified. Any GP can request an urgent appointment through the route outlined in (a).

Wherever possible, urgent assessment is  undertaken within the Emergency Department  at  the General Hospital, which allows for any physical symptoms or conditions to be addressed, enabling a comprehensive mental health assessment to be completed.

GPs are not part of the Health and Social Services Department. They are run as private business and set their charges accordingly. The Minister for Health and Social Services has no control on that issue, although work is ongoing with GPs to develop a Primary Care Strategy for improving access to primary care services to all patients.

In terms of provision that is made within the Health and Social Services Department, any person in need of immediate compulsory psychiatric treatment under the Mental Health (Jersey) Law 1969 is exempt from charges, under the conditions of the Health and Social Services Residents and Non-Residents Charging Policy.

In the context of charges that are made for services provided by the Health and Social Services Department, the Minister believes this is an appropriate position.

3. The national average for an immediate response where urgent assistance is required is for a patient to be seen within 30 minutes in the UK, and the Minisiter is proud to say that in Jersey, the average response time is just 20 minutes.

This is a consistently high standard which has contributed to the Community and Social Services Department's National Accreditation by the Royal College of Psychiatry, and to the Mental Health Liaison Service successfully achieving excellence' status for its services, one of only three authorities across the UK to currently hold this accolade.

GP referrals made to the Adult Mental Health Service are screened on the day of receipt.

Where a referral indicates a significant risk, the referred patient is seen on the same day, or at least within 24 hours of the referral being received.

Where a referral is made on a routine' basis, the patient pathway involves a letter from the Adult Mental Health Service being sent to the individual seeking their consent to become involved in the service.

Once confirmation of consent has been received, an appointment is provided within a maximum three- week period.

This standard also exceeds expectations in the national standard set in the UK through NICE guidelines.

32. DEPUTY M.R. HIGGINS OF ST. HELIER OF THE MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS REAGRDING THE NUMBER OF WORK PERMITS ISSUED:

Question

Will the Minister advise Members of the number of work permits that have been issued in Jersey over the last three years and give further information regarding the nationality of each the people granted a permit, their profession or skills and the sector in which they will be working and the duration of the permit?

Answer

Work permits are issued in accordance with the Immigration (Work Permits) (Jersey) Rules 1995 and in accordance with the Work Permits Policy and Procedures issued by the Home Affairs Minister.

787 work permits were issued in the 3 years between 01/09/2011 and 30/08/2014 (this figure also includes those cases where an individual immigrant has been issued with more than 1 work permit within that period).

Of these 787 work permits:

• 309 were for skilled employment positions and were valid for between 1 month and 1 year :
• 326 were for skilled employment positions and were valid for between 1 and 3 years;
• 7 were for skilled employment positions and were valid for between 4 and 5 years.

• 145 were for un-skilled positions in the hotel and catering sector for returning workers and were valid for between 6 and 9 months.

The nationalities of the immigrants concerned are shown below, along with the number of work permits issued to each:

The 787 work permits were issued in the following sectors:

Most work permits are issued for periods between 6 months and 3 years; very exceptionally a work permit may be issued for a period of 5 years.

Data which cannot be readily retrieved:

In order to ascertain the duration and profession / skills related to individual work permits each of the 787 immigrant records involved would require separate examination in order to extrapolate the required information; such research cannot be undertaken in the available timescale.

Furthermore, the amount of time which would be required in order to fully answer the question is disproportionate to any public benefit in so doing.

If the questioner has concerns in relation to any specific category or categories of work permit then I would suggest that he re-present a more specific and targeted question.

3. Oral questions

1. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence of the Minister for Treasury and Resources regarding the significant changes in the income forecasts for 2014 and 2015:

I will say it is good to be back. When was the Minister first made aware of the significant changes in the income forecasts for 2014 and 2015?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Treasury and Resources):

The Income Tax Forecasting Group known as the I.T.F.G. meets to agree an income tax forecast which then informs each year's annual budget. The I.T.F.G. report, written to inform the 2014 Budget, was issued in September 2013, and as the Deputy will know, from written questions I answered in February, this includes lower forecasts compared to the M.T.F.P. (Medium-Term Financial Plan) figure which was in turn based upon an Income Tax Forecasting Group conclusion made in the early part of 2012. Members had a copy of this information prior to the debate on the 2014 Budget last year. A preliminary updated I.T.F.G. report for this year's Budget was produced in May 2014, although it was only finalised on 30th June, to inform the conclusions of the early Budget this year. This resulted in the 2014 forecasts being again revised. These forecasts have led to the development of the proposed measures to balance the Consolidated Fund, which are included in the Budget. In summary, I was therefore aware of an emerging issue in certainly late May. The Council of Ministers was updated on 11th June, although none of these estimates were confirmed until the meeting of the Income Tax Forecasting Group on 30th June.

Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:

Before I go on to supplementary. When the Minister said "late May", did he mean late May 2013 or late May 2014?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

No, this year.

1. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:

I am trying to match up 2 statements there. One was that, I believe the Minister said that Members were informed prior to the Budget of last year. Could he just clarify exactly when and what terms and was it from .. something directly from Treasury because for example, summary table A of the Budget for 2014 contained and continues to contain the optimistic figures? The Consolidated Fund forecast remained in the black using those figures. If the revised forecast had been used it would have been put into the red, and that is why it is quite crucial as to when this was all sent through.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I understand why, perhaps, Members are just confused about this issue: it is quite simple. The M.T.F.P. contains the forecast in revenue, which was approved by this Assembly in October 2012, of the Income Tax Forecasting Group conclusions and the rest of the Treasury income which was made in March of that year. Those numbers are not revised. They are not formally revised in terms of a revision of the M.T.F.P. The only things that have changed in the M.T.F.P. income is when this Assembly changes a policy. So there are 2 issues: there is the income tax forecast that was done in 2012, which was always going to be a long-range weather forecast which was going to change. What we have done is we have updated Members of the latest information and I was quite clear in last year's Budget and that is why Members had a full copy of the full report which has not been published because it contains a lot of granular detail of our income. All Members had a copy of the income tax forecasting conclusions last year, and I will be doing that again this year, by giving Members the full details of the Income Tax Forecasting Group conclusions.

2. Deputy J.H. Young of St. Brelade : What date was that report given to us? Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

Which report?

Deputy J.H. Young:

The Minister for Treasury and Resources said that Members were given a full copy of the report prior to the Budget of 2014, i.e. the one that we debated in December 2013. So when was that report provided to Members?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I do not have the precise date but a copy of that report was issued to States Members by email, I will get the date, and in advance, prior to the Budget debate, and the supplementary note, which is included in the actual published documents, obviously has all of the forecasts in 2013-15.

The Deputy Bailiff :

The Minister will provide the date to you.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

Exactly, but it is all there. There is some revisionism going on, I think.

3. Deputy J.H. Young:

The Minister has referred to making the States aware of this major shift in our income tax forecasts and that these were published, he says, at the time of the 2014 debate. Could he help us? I see that a report was in fact lodged, R.149/2013, on 3rd December 2013. Could he remind us when we approved the States Budget - on what day - and how much time we had had an opportunity to look at that detailed report with his revised forecast?

The Deputy Bailiff :

It is a matter of public record, Deputy . Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

It is not a memory test, I do not have those dates in my head but I know that the revised forecast .. there is this misunderstanding, I think, that the baseline numbers that are approved in the Assembly to base the Medium-Term Financial Plan, those are not changed. They are what they were at the time and of course they will change with the benefit of hindsight, and I am getting lots of questions today about a revised forecast down. I happen to have had lots of questions in 2011 and 2012 where apparently also the forecast was different when in fact there was £27 million more revenue and in 2012 there was £30 million more revenue. These numbers will change. Forecasts are forecasts. The nearer you come to the time, the more accurate they will become; they are like weather forecasts, and the fact is there is now this extrapolation that there is some sort of major issue and problem. These numbers will change based upon latest economic information, which is, a lot of it, completely outside the Island's and the Treasury's concern. I do not make the weather, I do not make the forecasts; they are what they are.

4. Deputy J.H. Young:

Supplementary, Sir. The Treasurer spoke about these forecasts as weather forecasts. Would he not accept that the weather for the last 30 years has been that our income tax forecasts have been underestimated and that we have always overachieved it and therefore a change to a deficit situation is something he should have highlighted up front on page one and at Budget time and with all the papers?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

Absolutely not, and this whole debate that seems to have emerged over the summer that first of all there is somehow a problem with a deficit, that there is somehow a problem with income tax forecasting, is simply, I think, revisionism. It is just not the reality. The fact is that the Income Tax Forecasting Group has, in previous times and Members have seen this chart; sometimes, yes, the Treasury is prudent but in previous recessions the Treasury did overstate income. It is not a criticism, and the forecasts, somehow to now say that forecasts which were done in 2012, because the income is not being met, is somehow a criticism of the Income Tax Forecasting Group is unfair. The world changed between the beginning of 2012 and later on. The Eurozone, double-dip in the recession, problems in the U.K. (United Kingdom). Of course the income was going to change. The key question is what would you do about it?

Deputy J.H. Young:

The Minister said I was criticising the Income Tax Forecasting Group and I want it put on record that is not the case.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Thank you, Deputy . Final supplementary, Deputy Le Fondré.

5. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:

The Minister has tried to say that the forecasts are like weather forecasts but it was very, very clear in 2012, and I refer to comments he has made in the press and the media recently and the Chamber of Commerce, that particularly Scrutiny, you have got some eminent advisers on advisement, identified the issue of the forecasting in 2012. They raised extreme concerns, and in 2013. Surely now the M.T.F.P. is basically in tatters because of the state of where we are, and surely the Minister, by ignoring the warnings that came through, must accept some form of responsibility for that.

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

The Minister takes complete responsibility for looking at forecasts and I use the analogy of the farmer at the Chamber of Commerce. The farmer does not make the weather, does not make the forecasts, neither do I. There is a difference between long-range forecasts and short-dated forecasts, and what you do is you respond. We knew that the economy internationally was under serious threat. What do we do? We then deliver more fiscal stimulus, more help for the economy. When those income forecasts went up in 2011, the first thing I did was bring a proposition to this Assembly to spend more money - on £27 million - for the Housing Department. Where was

Deputy Le Fondré criticising then the fact we had overachieved the number? What a prudent Minister for Treasury and Resources, like an informed farmer does, is he takes action, and if you think the weather forecast is going to be wrong economically you get the fertiliser out, you get the irrigation pipes out and you stimulate the economy. He says that Scrutiny has observers. [Approbation] Well I take my advice from the F.P.P. (Fiscal Policy Panel), people like Dame Kate Barker, Joly Dixon, and they are saying the Budget is absolutely right. Do not compromise the recovery; help it and run deficits, and we are doing that because we have got responsible politics and this Assembly has supported not having a structural deficit which means we can invest and we should invest. Is that a problem? I do not think so.

2. Deputy S.Y. Mézec of St. Helier of the Chairman of Privileges and Procedures Committee regarding campaign group expenses in relation to the forthcoming referendum:

What provisions, if any, are in place to ensure that there will be a level playing field in terms of what expenses the campaign groups are allowed to incur for the upcoming referendum on the future of the Constables in the States?

Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour (Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee):

There is no provision in the Referendum (Jersey) Law 2002 to govern the level of expenditure incurred by campaign groups in promoting their preferred option. In the reform referendum campaign held in April 2013, defined campaign groups emerged for the 3 options and this enabled a publicly-funded website and leaflet to households to contain statements from all 3 groups. If united campaign groups emerge for the forthcoming referendum, funding could be made available to do similar things. If 2 clear groups emerge, the Yes' campaign group and the No' campaign group will have the opportunity to make their argument on the vote.je website and in the leaflet, which will be sent to all households, a maximum word count would be set. The cost would be met from the funding stipulated in P.118/2014, the Referendum Act, which identifies funding for the printing of ballot papers and a media campaign not exceeding £30,000. In the absence of any statutory body, there is no one in Jersey with the authority to define which campaign group has official status for the content of the website and the leaflet. It is therefore necessary for campaigners to come together to promote their preferred options and make themselves known to the committee and the Greffe and P.P.C. The P.P.C. could only use public money to promote the referendum if there were 2 very clearly identifiable groups that were fully representative of those campaigning for both sides and P.P.C. would urge either of the groups to come forward as soon as possible. Thank you.

1. Deputy S.Y. Mézec :

The short answer to that question was none. So that means that this referendum is in breach of section 2.2 of the Venice Commission's code of good practice on referendums. So my second question to the Chairman is: does he know how many other criteria of the Venice Commission this referendum is going to breach?

Deputy J.M. Maçon:

I have not had an opportunity to compare and contrast the Venice Commission with our Act. Members will be aware, of course, that this was not the proposition and question that the Privileges and Procedures Committee brought forward. At the eleventh hour, the States Assembly decided upon another question, and accepting the democratic will of this Assembly, P.P.C. - through all the apparatus that we have - are doing what we can in order to enable a fair and balanced referendum should clearly identifiable sides on both sides come forward. Thank you.